JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - This Second Appeal has been filed against a reversing judgment, which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the learned lower appellate court is justified in declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as 23.4.1975 instead of 23.4.1979 as reflected in the High School Certificate since the same issue has been conclusively decided by this Court by judgment dated 3.7.2009 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2161 of 2007 and operate as res judicata? In order to appreciate the contentions and submissions of the respective parties, it is necessary to state in brief the history of the proceeding, from which the present appeal arises. On 08.11.1994, the appellants Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short "IOCL") made a requisition to the District Employment Officer, Balasore for recommending the names to fill up the post of Junior Operator (F). In response to the said letter, the District Employment Officer sponsored the name of the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff by letter dated 17.01.1995. On 21.06.1995, the respondent No. 1 filled up an application form for employment along with an attestation form marked as Exts. A and B, in his own handwriting indicating that his date of birth is "23.04.1975". He also submitted a Provisional Certificate-cum-Mark-sheet purportedly issued on 02.07.1993 by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha marked as Ext. D. The respondent No. 1 received the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate on 31.08.1995, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as "23.04.1979" (Ext. C). 2. The respondent No. 1 joined IOCL as Junior Operator (F) on 26.05.1996. On 31.10.2005, a complaint was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar with a copy endorsed to the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi as well as the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court alleging that the respondent No. 1, Emp. No. 32411 working at Indane Bottling Plant, Balasore of the IOCL has secured an employment as Junior Operator giving a forged certificate, in which his date of birth has been mentioned as "23.04.1975", though his actual date of birth is "23.04.1979" in the original Board Certificate. The complainant further stated that the respondent No. 1 has joined duty at Balasore Bottling Plant at the age of 16 years, which was not permissible. The complainant further stated that the respondent No. 1 has joined duty at Balasore Bottling Plant at the age of 16 years, which was not permissible. The said complaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. to the Chief Vigilance Officer, IOCL, New Delhi requesting to take necessary action. It was registered as VM-51/05-ER and forwarded to the Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) Mktg. (ER) for detailed investigation. The case was allotted to one Debasis Choudhury, Senior Vigilance Officer, who has been examined as D.W. 1 in the suit, for necessary investigation. 3. During the investigation, he found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is "23.04.1979" and not "23.04.1975". The Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary Education also by his letter dated 30.11.2005 (Ext. G) confirmed the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 to be "23.04.1979". The Headmaster of Nilagiri Road High School, by his letter dated 09.12.2005 also confirmed this fact. The Investigating Officer, therefore, recorded the finding that the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 is "23.04.1979" and not "23.04.1975" and further at the time of appointment, the respondent No. 1 has given a fake/manipulated provisional certificate of High School Examination showing his date of birth as "23.04.1975". On the above finding, the Vigilance Department of IOCL recommended for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent No. 1 for major penalty under the Certified Standing Orders as applicable to him. Accordingly, charges were framed registering a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 submitted his explanation to the charges framed denying the same, which was found to be unsatisfactory. However, in his explanation, he admitted to have submitted the Provisional Certificate-cum-Mark-sheet. The respondent No. 1 approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha in C.C. No. 67 of 2006 claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Board of Secondary Education with regard to mentioning the wrong date of birth in his certificate. The said dispute was disposed of by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission granting liberty to the respondent No. 1 to file a fresh representation within a week before the Board of Secondary Education, which was directed to dispose of the same by the end of February, 2007 and communicate its decision. The said dispute was disposed of by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission granting liberty to the respondent No. 1 to file a fresh representation within a week before the Board of Secondary Education, which was directed to dispose of the same by the end of February, 2007 and communicate its decision. Such a representation was made by the respondent No. 1 for correction of the date of birth, which was rejected by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha on 12.01.2007 in terms of Clause - 39 of Section-VI of Chapter-X of the Board's Regulation. Being aggrieved by such action of the Board of Secondary Education, the respondent No. 1 filed W.P. (C) No. 2161 of 2007 making the following prayers:- .....Issue a Rule Nisi in the nature of certiorari calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned charge sheet dated 23.08.2006 vide Annexure-14 and letter dated 12.01.2007 vide Annexure-17 issued by the Deputy General Manager (HR), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (MD), Eastern Region, Kolkata, Opposite party No. 7 and the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, opposite party No. 1 shall not be quashed and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said Rule absolute. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, opposite party No. 1 to correct the petitioner's date of birth from 23.04.1979 to 23.04.1975.... 4. The Board of Secondary Education, DGM (HR) IOCL along with the Inspector of Schools, Balasore Circle, the District Inspector of Schools, Balasore and the Headmasters of three High Schools were impleaded as opposite parties in the said writ application. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the appellants, who were opposite parties, as well as by the Board of Secondary Education. 5. This Court disposed of the said writ application, i.e., (W.P. (C) No. 2161/2007) by judgment dated 03.07.2009, reported in Anup Kumar Panda Vs. Board of Secondary Education and Others, in paragraphs-5 & 7 whereof, it has been held as follows:- 5. ....the petitioner had filled up the application form in his own hand writing, for appearing in the High School Certificate examination, 1993 conducted by the Board, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner had been mentioned as 23.04.1979. Board of Secondary Education and Others, in paragraphs-5 & 7 whereof, it has been held as follows:- 5. ....the petitioner had filled up the application form in his own hand writing, for appearing in the High School Certificate examination, 1993 conducted by the Board, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner had been mentioned as 23.04.1979. The said application of the petitioner had been forwarded by the Headmaster of the concerned institution after due verification from the records of the school and on the basis of such details furnished in the application, the Board had recorded the same in its permanent records of Tabulation register and certificate register and certificate had been issued by the Board on the basis of such entry. Further as the petitioner was aware of his date of birth as 23.04.1979, as recorded in his admit card, provisional certificate cum memorandum of marks of original pass certificate supplied by the board in the year 1993, there is no possibility of the petitioner not knowing his date of birth, as recorded in those documents. Moreover, Clause-39 of Section-VI of Chapter-X of the Board's Regulation provides only for correction of clerical error or printing mistake in the certificate, which can be carried out within three years from the date of passing the examination. No objection having been raised by the petitioner with regard to his date of birth as recorded in the certificate issued by the Board till the year 2006, there was no scope for correcting the certificate at the belated stage. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties and keeping in view the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board-Opposite party No. 1, the decision of the Board, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for correction of date of birth cannot be faulted. So far as the challenge to the initiation of disciplinary proceeding by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., by issue of charge sheet against the petitioner, the same is premature. The writ petition is devoid of merits, the same is accordingly dismissed and the interim order dated 09.03.2007 stand vacated. 6. After disposal of the writ application, the respondent No. 1, who was the petitioner, filed Misc. Case No. 8469 of 2009 for modification of the judgment. When the said Misc. The writ petition is devoid of merits, the same is accordingly dismissed and the interim order dated 09.03.2007 stand vacated. 6. After disposal of the writ application, the respondent No. 1, who was the petitioner, filed Misc. Case No. 8469 of 2009 for modification of the judgment. When the said Misc. Case was taken up, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, who was the petitioner, wanted to withdraw the said Misc. Case petition expressing his intention to seek remedies in the civil court. This Court disposed of the said Misc. Case with the following order:- Heard. This petition has been filed for modification of the judgment dated 3.7.2009. In course of the hearing, Mr. Mishra wants to withdraw this petition expressing his intention to seek remedies in the civil court. Law is well settled that there is no bar if the remedies are otherwise available. Without expressing any opinion, this Misc. Case is disposed of as withdrawn. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 756 of 2009-I before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore with similar prayer as made in the writ application earlier. During pendency of the suit, the respondent No. 1 filed interim application under Order-39, Rule-1 CPC, being, I.A. No. 358 of 2009, to injunct the IOCL from taking any coercive action against him. 7. The learned trial court dismissed the said interim application, against which the respondent No. 1 filed FAO No. 99 of 2009 before the learned District Judge, Balasore. The learned Additional District Judge, Balasore heard the said FAO and by his order dated 07.12.2009, set aside the order of the learned trial court and directed the IOCL not to take any coercive action against the plaintiff till disposal of the suit and further directed the learned trial court to dispose of the suit within four weeks. The learned Additional District Judge, Balasore heard the said FAO and by his order dated 07.12.2009, set aside the order of the learned trial court and directed the IOCL not to take any coercive action against the plaintiff till disposal of the suit and further directed the learned trial court to dispose of the suit within four weeks. The IOCL assailed the said order before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1395 of 2010 and this Court, by order dated 26.02.2010, set aside the order passed by the learned lower appellate court in the FAO and directed the learned trial court to dispose of the suit within four months holding that it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding, but final order in the said proceeding shall not be passed for a period of four months from that date or till completion of the trial, whichever is earlier and it is open to the authorities to pass final order thereafter. Subsequently, a Misc. Case was filed by the respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid writ application for extension of time for disposal of the suit and for directing the IOCL not to take any coercive action against him till disposal of the suit. This Court, however, did not entertain the said Misc. Case, which was dismissed by order dated 30.06.2010. The IOCL proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding where the respondent No. 1 was found guilty and the second show cause notice was served on him. On considering the materials, ultimately the IOCL terminated the respondent No. 1 from service. On such termination, the respondent No. 1 sought for an amendment of the plaint by inserting a prayer to declare that the order of dismissal from service is a nullity and for a mandatory declaration for reinstatement in his original post. Such amendment was carried out and the suit was thereafter tried by framing as many as eight issues. Issue No. 3 was, as to whether the suit is hit under the principle of res judicata and estoppel. It is the finding on this issue, which is under challenge by the appellants and the substantial question of law has been framed in this regard. 8. Dr. Issue No. 3 was, as to whether the suit is hit under the principle of res judicata and estoppel. It is the finding on this issue, which is under challenge by the appellants and the substantial question of law has been framed in this regard. 8. Dr. A.K. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2161 of 2007, wherein this Court conclusively held that the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 was mentioned as "23.04.1979" in the certificate granted by the Board of Secondary Education and such date of birth was mentioned in the application filled up by the respondent No. 1 to appear in the said examination, which was forwarded by the Headmaster of the concerned institution after due verification from the record of the School and on that basis, such date of birth has been recorded in the permanent records of the Tabulation Register and certificate register and certificate has been issued by the Board on the basis of such entry which is a conclusive finding, there was no scope for the civil court to re-adjudicate this issue, as the same was barred by res judicata. Dr. Rath, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the learned trial court rightly dismissed the suit, but the learned lower appellate court, on a wrong notion of law, came to the conclusion that this Court only declined to correct the certificate in its judgment passed in the writ application, at a belated stage, as no prayer for correction of the certificate was made till 2006 and the civil suit for declaration is not barred by res judicata, which is very much maintainable. It was further contended by him that the learned lower appellate court misread the law laid down in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Sri Gourananda Deo, 9. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, however, on the contrary, contended that question of applying the principle of res judicata in the facts of the present case does not arise at all. Sri Gourananda Deo, 9. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, however, on the contrary, contended that question of applying the principle of res judicata in the facts of the present case does not arise at all. He submitted that the learned trial court in paragraph-20 of the judgment, while dealing with the issue No. 4 erroneously held that the judgment of this Court pronounced in the writ application will stand as a bar for the civil suit as well as it will act as res judicata and principle of estoppel will apply. While supporting the judgment of the learned lower appellate court, Mr. Mishra submitted that this Court, in the earlier writ application, has not decided the actual date of birth of the respondent No. 1, but accepting the order of 'rejection of the representation of the respondent No. 1 by the Board of Secondary Education, dismissed the writ application. Hence, the factual issue with regard to the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 was never decided by this Court in the earlier writ application. He further contended that res judicata is the doctrine, which is applied to give finality to a lis. The doctrine in substance means that an issue or a point decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be reopened and re-agitated in a subsequent lis. The literal meaning of "res" is "everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject matter or "status" and "res judicata" literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." 10. Section-11 of CPC engrafts this doctrine with a purpose that "a final judgment rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action". This view has been fortified in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd., previously known as Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously known as Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Kumanon Division, Nainital, U.P. and Others, 11. Question of applicability of the doctrine of res judicata is always a mixed question of fact and law. This view has been fortified in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd., previously known as Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously known as Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Kumanon Division, Nainital, U.P. and Others, 11. Question of applicability of the doctrine of res judicata is always a mixed question of fact and law. The issue raised between the same parties in an earlier lis requiring the factual finding, if adjudicated by a competent court of law having jurisdiction to decide such issue, the same cannot be re-agitated in a subsequent proceeding. With regard to the applicability of the principle of res judicata, it has been held in the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and Others Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and Others, as follows:- In order to apply the general principle of res judicata Court must first find, whether an issue in a subsequent suit, was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit or proceeding, was it between the same parties, and was it decided by such Court. Thus there should be an issue raised and decided, not merely any finding on any incidental question for reaching such a decision. So if no such issue is raised and if on any other issue, if incidentally any finding is recorded, it would not come within the periphery of the principle of res judicata. 12. It may be mentioned here that in the writ application filed before this Court, i.e., W.P. (C) No. 2161 of 2007, the respondent No. 1 was the petitioner challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the prayer to correct the date of birth in the Board certificate as "23.04.1975" instead of "23.04.1979". In the writ application, the Board/present respondent No. 2, having appeared, filed the counter affidavit with a plea of limitation stating that Clause-39 of Section-VI of Chapter-X of Board's Regulation provides only for correction of clerical error or printing mistake in the certificate, which can be carried out within three years from the date of passing of the examination. It was also stated that no objection having been raised by the writ petitioner with regard to his date of birth as recorded in the certificate issued by the Board till the year 2006, there was no scope for correcting the certificate at a belated stage. It was also stated that no objection having been raised by the writ petitioner with regard to his date of birth as recorded in the certificate issued by the Board till the year 2006, there was no scope for correcting the certificate at a belated stage. Considering the aforesaid averments, this Court confirmed the order of the Board rejecting the prayer of the respondent No. 1 to correct the date of birth. However, after dismissal of the writ application, the respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing a Misc. Case registered as Misc. Case No. 8469 of 2009 for modification of the order dated 03.07.2009 dismissing the writ application. This Court, by order dated 24.07.2009, disposed of the said Misc. Case with the observation that law is well settled that there is no bar, if the remedies are otherwise available. The aforesaid observation was made, as the respondent No. 1, in his application for modification, prayed for liberty of this Court to approach the civil court. Thereafter, the present suit was filed. 13. The writ application was disposed of, but there was no finding on the issue with regard to the actual date of birth of the respondent No. 1. That apart, the question of determination of the date of birth being a disputed question of fact, the same could not have been decided by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Articles 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. There being no finding on the actual date of birth of the respondent No. 1, the subsequent civil suit, seeking for a declaration, is not barred by res judicata and is very much maintainable. Section-34 of the Specific Relief Act provides for a declaration of the status of a person and the date of birth, being a matter in relation to status of a person and appertaining to his legal character, the present suit for correction of the date of birth is maintainable in the civil court and such declaration cannot be made in a writ application. The decision in the writ application having not been with regard to the issue as to which is the actual date of birth of the respondent No. 1, the same shall not operate as res judicata in the present suit. The decision in the writ application having not been with regard to the issue as to which is the actual date of birth of the respondent No. 1, the same shall not operate as res judicata in the present suit. In the result, therefore, this Court finds that the substantial question of law should be answered in the affirmative as no error can be found in the judgment of the learned lower appellate court in declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as "23.4.1975" instead of "23.4.1979". The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances without any cost. Final Result : Dismissed